What makes you say that? In the case of the I-90 project in the linked video, they addressed issues of risk and cost, as well as proof of use by animals, in the planning stage.

The problem is that Canada chose to route their largest national highway, Trans-Canada Highway 1, right through a National Park. This is just mitigating the downsides of that decision.

I'm thinking the national park came after the roadway? Or at least the railroad?

It's not like someone said "Hey, that's a nice national park, let's run a road right through it."

i wonder on a grand scheme of things if this is really a waste/spend of resources that actually matters.

if people in 200 years from now look at our century's (or even generation) expenses - would they even see those kind of expenses anywhere?

on the flip side:

balance in nature is something we have still a very hard time recreating. reversing extinction is close to impossible. and imbalance of nature is potentially one of the biggest cost drivers for future generations.

i see this as cheap R&D for future investments in the balance of nature 100 years from now.